Er, yeah, no one is gonna be voting against Rick Scott. But they can enter the polling booth to vote against the Republican candidate if Obama successfully convinces them that he or she will implement similar policies as Rick Scott? geez

Yes, I realize no one will be going in to vote against Rick Scott because he isn't on the ballot. Thanks for the reminder though.

Obama's re-election will be, like every re-election, a referendum on the incumbent. The President isn't going to actively tie his opponent to Scott. It just doesn't work that way. He will attack policies that might be unpopular and advanced by a Republican nominee but I'd be shocked if he made "So and so is just like Governor Scott!" a major selling point.

He did it for Bush, so he might do it again? I don't know why you vehemently think that Obama won't tie his opponent to unpopular incumbents. The Republicans will probably invoke unpopular incumbents too, like Bev Perdue, in their campaign stops too.

Scott’s standing is so poor that 40% of this swing state’s voters say his actions asgovernor will make them less likely to support the Republicans’ presidential nomineenext year. Only 26% say they will make them more likely. Most crucially, independentssay by a 45-18 margin that Scott has turned them off from GOP candidates in general.

Scott’s standing is so poor that 40% of this swing state’s voters say his actions asgovernor will make them less likely to support the Republicans’ presidential nomineenext year. Only 26% say they will make them more likely. Most crucially, independentssay by a 45-18 margin that Scott has turned them off from GOP candidates in general.

Obama will simply tie the GOP Presidential candidate to Gov. Scott in 2012.

One of the dumbest talked up "strategies" ever. Obama will win or lose Florida based on Floridians' views on him.

If that is the case then many politicians are quite dumb because that strategy has been used many times before. Perhaps you have simply not noticed.

Point to one example of an incumbent President using an unpopular incumbent Governor of a state as a major campaign talking point.

LOL, if you think that the White House will not try to use Gov. Scott's massive unpopularity to their advantage, then there is no point in discussing it further. And Obama is already criticizing Scott even before the campaign has really begun:

Quote

President Barack Obama says Florida Gov. Rick Scott was wrong to reject $2.4 billion in federal money to build a high-speed rail line from Orlando to Tampa.

During an interview Friday with WSVN in Miami, Obama signaled his belief that progress is necessary in the Sunshine State.

"Frankly, I think the governor was wrong on this," he said. "And that's not just my opinion. That's the opinion of folks in Tampa and Orlando, including a lot of Republicans up there."

Here's also a minor piece of information: Scott is the incumbent Governor in an important swing state.

I don't even know why I'm debating this. So stupid. As you've seen by Ogre Mage's post, he's already bashing on him, and the rhetoric is only gonna increase on the campaign trail. It's like you want something to be true so bad that you won't have it any other way.

LOL, if you think that the White House will not try to use Gov. Scott's massive unpopularity to their advantage, then there is no point in discussing it further. And Obama is already criticizing Scott even before the campaign has really begun

There's a difference between criticizing a Governor and making him a major talking point when you're President of the United States. The latter won't happen.

Here's also a minor piece of information: Scott is the incumbent Governor in an important swing state.

...

What isn't sinking in for you? This isn't a Gubernatorial election. Being the incumbent Governor in an important swing state isn't going tip the state one way or the other. You're not grasping that these two offices are on different levels and the President isn't going to seriously punch down at a Governor he isn't running against in the election.

Quote

It's like you want something to be true so bad that you won't have it any other way.

No, that sounds like you guys because you have yet to provide a single example of a President using an incumbent Governor of a state as a major talking point during the campaign despite the fact that you said this has been done plenty of times before.

Scott’s standing is so poor that 40% of this swing state’s voters say his actions asgovernor will make them less likely to support the Republicans’ presidential nomineenext year. Only 26% say they will make them more likely. Most crucially, independentssay by a 45-18 margin that Scott has turned them off from GOP candidates in general.

Wow! Scott is so bad that 26% are more likely to vote for a Republican for President? Very compelling data! You guys definitely proved me wrong on this one.

Scott’s standing is so poor that 40% of this swing state’s voters say his actions asgovernor will make them less likely to support the Republicans’ presidential nomineenext year. Only 26% say they will make them more likely. Most crucially, independentssay by a 45-18 margin that Scott has turned them off from GOP candidates in general.

Wow! Scott is so bad that 26% are more likely to vote for a Republican for President? Very compelling data! You guys definitely proved me wrong on this one.

I'll respect the fact that we are friends and won't put this post into the Goldmine.

Scott’s standing is so poor that 40% of this swing state’s voters say his actions asgovernor will make them less likely to support the Republicans’ presidential nomineenext year. Only 26% say they will make them more likely. Most crucially, independentssay by a 45-18 margin that Scott has turned them off from GOP candidates in general.

Wow! Scott is so bad that 26% are more likely to vote for a Republican for President? Very compelling data! You guys definitely proved me wrong on this one.

Minus the 40% less like to vote Republican leaves a net 14% of the state less likely to vote GOP due to Scott's performance. Not to mention a net 27% of all-important independents being generally turned off to voting Republican out of fears they'll govern like Scott.

While its silly to just ignore the simple math presented, one can reasonably argue whether Scott's deep unpopularity--assuming it even lasts through next November--will translate to Republicans in federal races, particularly one as high profile as Obama's re-election bid, rather than simply hurt GOP races for FL state office (legislature, Attorney General, etc.).

Scott’s standing is so poor that 40% of this swing state’s voters say his actions asgovernor will make them less likely to support the Republicans’ presidential nomineenext year. Only 26% say they will make them more likely. Most crucially, independentssay by a 45-18 margin that Scott has turned them off from GOP candidates in general.

Wow! Scott is so bad that 26% are more likely to vote for a Republican for President? Very compelling data! You guys definitely proved me wrong on this one.

Minus the 40% less like to vote Republican leaves a net 14% of the state less likely to vote GOP due to Scott's performance. Not to mention a net 27% of all-important independents being generally turned off to voting Republican out of fears they'll govern like Scott.

I'm still waiting for the explanation as to why the ever-so-unpopular Scott has 26% of people more likely to vote for the GOP nominee. And you can't chalk that up to Republican hacks. They'd simply (and correctly) answer that Scott's performance has absolutely no impact on how they'll vote for President. It will be the same case for voters in 2012.

I'm not arguing that the math is wrong; I'm arguing that it's a bogus thought that people will vote for President based on their feelings on Scott. It's such a deeply flawed strategy and question for a poll.

Quote

While its silly to just ignore the simple math presented, one can reasonably argue whether Scott's deep unpopularity--assuming it even lasts through next November--will translate to Republicans in federal races, particularly one as high profile as Obama's re-election bid, rather than simply hurt GOP races for FL state office (legislature, Attorney General, etc.).

I just have to thank God that the evil Governor Bob Taft didn't keep Bush from winning Ohio in 2004. W. got really lucky on that one!

I'm still waiting for the explanation as to why the ever-so-unpopular Scott has 26% of people more likely to vote for the GOP nominee. And you can't chalk that up to Republican hacks. They'd simply (and correctly) answer that Scott's performance has absolutely no impact on how they'll vote for President. It will be the same case for voters in 2012.

I'm not arguing that the math is wrong; I'm arguing that it's a bogus thought that people will vote for President based on their feelings on Scott. It's such a deeply flawed strategy and question for a poll.

27% of Illinoinans voted Alan Keyes back in 2004. I guess those Scott admirers are the same kind of people: hardcore, far-right wingers who would be willing to vote Charles Manson, as long as he has an R next to his name.

I'm still waiting for the explanation as to why the ever-so-unpopular Scott has 26% of people more likely to vote for the GOP nominee. And you can't chalk that up to Republican hacks. They'd simply (and correctly) answer that Scott's performance has absolutely no impact on how they'll vote for President. It will be the same case for voters in 2012.

I'm not arguing that the math is wrong; I'm arguing that it's a bogus thought that people will vote for President based on their feelings on Scott. It's such a deeply flawed strategy and question for a poll.

27% of Illinoinans voted Alan Keyes back in 2004. I guess those Scott admirers are the same kind of people: hardcore, far-right wingers who would be willing to vote Charles Manson, as long as he has an R next to his name.

You're misunderstanding my point. This poll states that 26% of people are more likely to vote for the Republican Presidential nominee because of Rick Scott. This isn't about 26% of people liking Scott so save your "Scott is obviously horrible but those dumb Republicans will like him anyway!" bit for another thread.

My point is that even the biggest of hacks - and, for the sake of this argument, we'll say that they approve of Governor Scott - would say that Rick Scott's performance has no difference on how they will vote for President.

If someone asked me if I approve of Senator Casey and then asked if my feelings on Senator Casey would mean I'm more or less likely to vote for President Obama, I'd sanely tell them that it makes no difference.

I truly don't understand why this is a controversial point to make. When a party is in some level of government and is unpopular, it can usually lead to voters disliking that party beyond just one specific area, especially in traditional swing states like Florida. I don't think that Obama can just come in a run against Scott directly, or anything, but having a deeply disliked and unpopular Governor certainly advantages Obama and the Democrats in general.

I realize this is slightly unrelated, but when I was watching the Canadian election, where were some of the weakest areas of NDP gains, or where did they underperform in comparison to other areas? Where they were in government and slightly unpopular, people were not as enthusiastic as other provinces in supporting federal NDP candidates. This sort of stuff is common sense and often translates into a bleeding effect on other levels of elections.

Why does Scott make some voters more likely to vote for a Republican candidate? I sure as hell don't know. As others have said you're probably down to the really uninformed voters or the hardest of the hardcore. But the central point of what Badger, or Holmes, or Px75 are arguing makes perfect sense. A deeply unpopular Republican governor would obviously not help Republican prospects in that state. Duh.

Scott’s standing is so poor that 40% of this swing state’s voters say his actions asgovernor will make them less likely to support the Republicans’ presidential nomineenext year. Only 26% say they will make them more likely. Most crucially, independentssay by a 45-18 margin that Scott has turned them off from GOP candidates in general.

Phil has a point, but a partial one. The fact that 26% say Scott makes them more likely to vote for the Republican shows there's a certain partisan baseline in the results here from people who would vote for their party's candidate anyway and want to brag about it.

But the fact that it's 40% in Florida for the Dem, vs. 26% for the Republican, is more than enough to cause concern for Republicans. Florida does not have an electorate that is 40% foaming-at-the-mouth Dem.

A deeply unpopular Republican governor would obviously not help Republican prospects in that state. Duh.

I never said he would help (except for this mysterious 26% of the population); I'm saying that people aren't going to vote against the Republican Presidential nominee because of Scott.

Because I hate this question when I am polled, if the democrat governor in my state is unpopular (an we have had a couple recently) I always say he makes me more likely to vote for a democratic presidential candidate, even though it really makes no difference to me.

Logged

"I believe we can keep the promise of our founders, the idea that if you’re willing to work hard, it doesn’t matter who you are or where you come from or what you look like or where you love. It doesn’t matter whether you’re black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, able, disabled, gay or straight, you can make it here in America if you’re willing to try.-Obama

I'm not sure we can say how independent voters will act as they are a notoriously fickle group. But I would not overlook the possibility Scott could have a negative impact in a federal race. Let's say the GOP candidate(s) said they agreed with Scott's decision to kill Obama's high speed rail plan. How would independent voters in Tampa and Orlando react to that information? Perhaps that alone might not be enough to swing the vote but eventually there very well could be a tipping point. Much will depend on the identity of the GOP candidate, how he or she runs the campaign and the degree to which the candidate chooses to distance himself or herself from Gov. Scott.

Conservative voters will obviously not vote for Obama. But if the governor's performance continues as it is, I wonder how motivated to vote they will be.

In any case, whether or not the attacks on Scott actually work, they will definitely continue. I already posted Obama's remarks on Scott's high speed rail decision. And just today Bill Clinton says:

Quote

...“There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today,” Clinton added.

Clinton mentioned Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s move in March to overturn past state precedent — including under former GOP governors — that allows convicted felons to vote once they’ve served they’ve finished probation periods.

“Why should we disenfranchise people forever once they’ve paid their price?” Clinton said. “Because most of them in Florida were African Americans and Hispanics who tended to vote for Democrats. That’s why.”...

Scott’s standing is so poor that 40% of this swing state’s voters say his actions asgovernor will make them less likely to support the Republicans’ presidential nomineenext year. Only 26% say they will make them more likely. Most crucially, independentssay by a 45-18 margin that Scott has turned them off from GOP candidates in general.

Wow! Scott is so bad that 26% are more likely to vote for a Republican for President? Very compelling data! You guys definitely proved me wrong on this one.

Minus the 40% less like to vote Republican leaves a net 14% of the state less likely to vote GOP due to Scott's performance. Not to mention a net 27% of all-important independents being generally turned off to voting Republican out of fears they'll govern like Scott.

I'm still waiting for the explanation as to why the ever-so-unpopular Scott has 26% of people more likely to vote for the GOP nominee. And you can't chalk that up to Republican hacks. They'd simply (and correctly) answer that Scott's performance has absolutely no impact on how they'll vote for President. It will be the same case for voters in 2012.

I'm not arguing that the math is wrong; I'm arguing that it's a bogus thought that people will vote for President based on their feelings on Scott. It's such a deeply flawed strategy and question for a poll.

Quote

While its silly to just ignore the simple math presented, one can reasonably argue whether Scott's deep unpopularity--assuming it even lasts through next November--will translate to Republicans in federal races, particularly one as high profile as Obama's re-election bid, rather than simply hurt GOP races for FL state office (legislature, Attorney General, etc.).

I just have to thank God that the evil Governor Bob Taft didn't keep Bush from winning Ohio in 2004. W. got really lucky on that one!

Taft's wasn't particularly unpopular in 2004, so the comparison is weak at best. Also, if you stopped ranting for a moment you might notice I was somewhat agreeing with your point.

Phil has a point, but a partial one. The fact that 26% say Scott makes them more likely to vote for the Republican shows there's a certain partisan baseline in the results here from people who would vote for their party's candidate anyway and want to brag about it.

But the fact that it's 40% in Florida for the Dem, vs. 26% for the Republican, is more than enough to cause concern for Republicans. Florida does not have an electorate that is 40% foaming-at-the-mouth Dem.

As usual, Brittain makes the point most concisely and incisively. I'd further add to his point that missing in the "debate" during the last two pages of thread is the particularly telling---and should be concerning to the FL GOP---45-18 less/more likely to vote GOP because of Scott among independents.

Again, how much that'll translate to the presidential election as opposed to (e.g.) a state senate race is debatable.

I truly don't understand why this is a controversial point to make. When a party is in some level of government and is unpopular, it can usually lead to voters disliking that party beyond just one specific area, especially in traditional swing states like Florida. I don't think that Obama can just come in a run against Scott directly, or anything, but having a deeply disliked and unpopular Governor certainly advantages Obama and the Democrats in general.

I realize this is slightly unrelated, but when I was watching the Canadian election, where were some of the weakest areas of NDP gains, or where did they underperform in comparison to other areas? Where they were in government and slightly unpopular, people were not as enthusiastic as other provinces in supporting federal NDP candidates. This sort of stuff is common sense and often translates into a bleeding effect on other levels of elections.

Why does Scott make some voters more likely to vote for a Republican candidate? I sure as hell don't know. As others have said you're probably down to the really uninformed voters or the hardest of the hardcore. But the central point of what Badger, or Holmes, or Px75 are arguing makes perfect sense. A deeply unpopular Republican governor would obviously not help Republican prospects in that state. Duh.

Of course other Republican politicians in the state are on the reverse side of the coin fairly popular. I.e. Rubio, many of the Republicans elected to the House in November etc.